Labor, Health & Social Services committee advances bill to change statutory definition of health care with amendments

The Labor, Health & Social Services Committee passed Senate File 125 as amended, a bill that would add legislative findings and definitions intended to change how the term "health care" is used in state law.

Committee members heard public comment and debated amendments before approving the measure. The sponsor was not present for the initial public comment period; the committee received testimony both for and against the bill.

The bill matters because it would change statutory language that, supporters said, clarifies the legislature’s intent about what counts as health care; opponents said the bill attempts to intrude on judicial interpretation and is unnecessary while court decisions are pending.

During public comment, Bill Winnie of Sublette County said the bill “is a pretty simple bill” and framed its purpose as reversing what he described as recent changes in language about the meaning of abortion and health care. Linda Burt of Wyoming Right to Choose told the committee she opposed the bill, arguing it was unnecessary because state courts currently treat abortion as health care and because the Wyoming Constitution separates the powers of the legislature and judiciary. Drake Hill of Honor Wyoming told the committee an amendment from Senator Steinmetz exists and urged the committee to consider it.

Senator Steinmetz appeared briefly and explained that the trigger language in the Senate version—delaying the bill’s effective date until a future court ruling or the next session—was included to avoid immediately restarting litigation. Representative Heft attempted an amendment to make the bill effective immediately but later withdrew his first attempt; a later motion to change the effective date to immediate failed on a tie vote.

Committee staff moved a technical correction prepared by LSO and Representative McCann’s amendment to add legislative findings and definitions was approved after discussion about whether the language copies statutory references into a new session-law section for clarity.

On the final roll call, the committee reported the bill passed as amended (tally reported in committee: 7 yes, 1 no, 1 excused). The committee asked the sponsor to carry the bill to the floor.

The action leaves open legal questions the committee discussed: opponents warned the legislature cannot dictate judicial interpretation and that the state’s courts will resolve the underlying issues; supporters said clarified statutory language is appropriate. The measure will next go to the full chamber for consideration.